King Kong (2005) (1 Viewer)

[Pete-D]

Yeah also was it really neccessary to have the party land on the island, encounter the natives, run back to the ship, have Naomi kidnapped, then have to go back to the island?

Stuff like that ... really slowed the movie down. Just land on the island, encounter the natives, have them take her prisoner ... simple as that.

The weird thing is, I felt there wasn't enough of Ann together with King Kong even with the 3 hour + length. The relationship still comes across, but we probably could've used a little more there.

 

[Paul_Scott]

in both previous versions, the Venture crew interrupts a ceremony and the natives come to see Ann specifically as worthy addition/replacement within the ceremony.
their motivations for skulking over to the ship later are clear.
also- the time spent back on the ship result in a further progression of the driscoll/Ann relationship.

both of those elements are absent here, and for me, its a noticeable void in this picture.

the Driscoll/Ann relationship was perfunctory and insufficently established (the guy risked his life solo to save her- they both were appaled at what Denham did once back in NYC so why weren't the two of them together for the third act? many people seem to accept that she would 'bond' with the ape, which later causes her to risk life and limb with him in the city, because he represented her sole protection on the island- and yet she has no strong pull to Driscoll, a man who was as much, if not more than, the hero for her that Kong was?
if this were jessica Langes character it might be a little more understandable as that character was written as a flake- but here, what's Ann's peculiar mental/emotional aboration that causes her to be more sympatico with a mutant animal than a fellow artist with whom she shares similar values?
the first scene between Kong and Ann were she first learns to distract him, still reveals the Ape to be dangerously unpredictable.
he could easily hurt/kill her without meaning it, by just rough play on his part- and SHE SHOULD KNOW THIS.
the film establishes her as being bold (petioning the producer in desperation) but also quite circumspect at the same time (refusing to work the burlesque house, being initially very wary of Denham until the lure of Driscoll is dropped). i don't think it was ever established that her character would be free and easy with such an unpredictible and dangerous wild animal.



like you Pete, i thought the Ann/Kong relationship was more thinly sketched than i was expecting based on the reviews.
by the time Driscoll showed up on the ledge, i was shocked because i knew that all the bonding scenes between Ann and the ape had been established by that point, and i didn't feel they were substantial enough to support what was to come in the third act (her surrendering herself to ape for a tragic tour of the city).

the ESB scene was AMAZING! and the way he finally fell off the building...i couldn't imagine that sequence ever having as much soul or power
the way his lifeless head slid off the top
...gives me chills thinking about it.
when a film does so many things right and in such a beautiful spectacular way, but then does just as many things wrong (sometimes in an equally spectacular way) it really leaves me confused and disappointed.

its not just that i think the film needs a shorter cut (which it clearly does), i think it needs some new scenes and re-interpretation of existing ones to be the film it wants to be- the points that Jackson wants to get across in this version are laid out there, but there aren't always well established or embellished. and another pass over the material, i think they could have been.
in the end, i think 25% of this film was material we did not need, while there is about 10% more we needed and didn't get.
i realize thats a minority opinion, but the negative reviews are actually heartening cause now i know i'm not alone in thinking this.

 

[Chris Atkins]

That's exactly what happens in the original movie, though.

 

[Paul_Scott]

so you are saying that is the reason it should be present here- just because it was in the original?

 

[Chris Atkins]

I haven't seen the new version yet, so I can't really say whether this sequence of events "works" in the new film.
I thought it worked well in the 1933 version though.

I was just pointing that out since this is a remake and an homage to the original.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

What I found interesting was that key
shots that were in the trailer never made
it to the film's final cut.

One scene in particular takes place on a
cove where Jack is filming his heroine
screaming. Suddenly, a ROAR follows her
scream.

I wonder if Peter Jackson shot that scene
specifically for the trailer as if not to
give too much else away.


Actually (and I don't know if this was pointed out)
that last line was supposed to have been spoken by
Fay Wray, but she passed away last year before that
scene was lensed.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Chris, there were spoilers in my post previous to yours were i discussed this issue, and so if you avoid reading that one, i'll understand .

the gist of what i said was, you are right. the sequence in the original is well done and it makes narrative sense and accomplishes more than one thing.
here it really doesn't.
there is no narrative need for them to go back to the ship
having the captain come to resuce them from the natives, could have easily occured after Ann was sacrificed with the others helplessly looking on.
not saying it HAD to or NEEDED to be done that way, only that it easily could have been and it wouldn't have affected anything save for shortening the running time.

from the arrival on Skull Island to the entrance of Kong, this version hits a monstorous sink hole for me.

 

[Chris Atkins]

Fair enough, Paul. I'm not willing to spoilerize myself, so I guess I'll just have to wait until I see the real thing.

 

[Paul_Scott]

and would that have made any more sense- for a bystander to walk up and toss out a cryptic, florid line?

the ape died for Denhams sins, as much as he died for pursuing the beauty.

also, in regards to the original film, because there was no 'relationship' forged between the beast and the girl, the apes motivations for pursuing Ann are irrational, but at the same time, thats a big part of what makes him a monster- irrational, primal (perveted sexual) motivation.
you don't get much more primal than eros and thanatos.

in this version, his motivations are much more sympathetic, and clearly in the form of non sexual owner/pet- making him much less of beast and more in the spirit of an unweildy mastiff.

before i saw the film, i thought dropping the whole sexual subtext would have been for the better, but now i'm not sure.
it is more logical, sure. but is it really 'better' or more 'magical'?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I thought the relationship between KONG and Ann was perfectly balanced and realized. I'd have been much happier with more scenes. It would have been equally effective with less scenes. But it's certainly the strength of the film, and frankly, the strength of ALL films this year. In a good year with some great films (a few I rated higher than KK), that relationship is the best thing I've seen this year, or in the last few years.

I also vehemently dislike PJ's jitter-cam. He's skilled enough to not need such a cheap parlor trick. I disliked it in LOTR as well. I also think Jack Black was excellent. It was a tricky character...he's obsessed, not evil. I supported Black from the minute he was cast, and I feel he paid off. I liked Jimmy...I liked Hayes. Their sub-lot must be missing scenes somewhere. But I agree. If you aren't going to go places with it...can the whole thing.

As for waiting for DVD...that's a horrific mistake. I don't know how else to say it. So many pseudo-theater films a year, so many pretenders...like it or dislike it, this film is meant for the theater.

Lastly, just giving this film the VFX Oscar neglects much of the work that made it happen. The effort on Kong is bigger than that field and deserves to be recognized as such. I doubt it will be. Simply another missed opportunity for the Oscars.

 

[Cory S.]

Quick, show of hands; which is the minority bunch with regards to this film because I'd like to join?

In all seriousness, I'm not even going to rain on anyone's parade who loved this film. I wanted to love what Jackson put on the screen but I had major problems with it. And maybe one of my problems with the films stands with the story itself. I just never really got KONG. I don't understand the love for the story and character.

Be that as it may, I went into the film hoping to gain some appreciatation for KONG the character and KONG the story and Jackson's execution didn't win me over one bit. Maybe moments, but definitely not the whole.

Because this is Jackson's passion project, I'd give it 2.5 stars but if I'm honest with myself, I'd really give this one star.

KONG the character might be the best Visual Effect in this year but KONG the film does not have the best Visual Effects this year. Not even remotely close.

Again, just my impression on the film Jackson delivered.

 

[Paul_Scott]

as much as i disliked many parts of the film, i would not talk anyone out of seeing this on as big a screen as possible.
just the opposite. i've loved the same material that jackson has, and i would love to discuss it pro and con with as many people as possible. i'm disappointed that this thread isn't already on a seventh or eight page already...what's the hold up people?

looking forward to hearing your thoughts on it Chris when you finally get to see it.

 

[Chris Atkins]

Looking forward to sharing them. I have to see POTTER and NARNIA first though. Probably seeing NARNIA on Saturday night.

KONG will probably get a viewing in between Christmas and New Years.

 

[Kyle_D]

College finals...:frowning:

Hopefully I'll get to this tonight.

 

[Cory S.]

Is it more or did Jack Black look like a short Orson Welles in the film?

 

[Paul_Scott]

i think the Welles implications are either non existent or else entirely superficial(phyisically, yeah there is a slight resemblence of Welles i guess). But i never once got the impression, as other reviewers had apparently, that Black & Jacksons Denham was an artistic rebel or genius (which is what a Wells reference would imply to me).
he was a hustler, whose filmmaking compulsion/values were more in line with Ed Wood than Orson Welles.

more problems for me-

apart from Kong, the animal behaviour in this movie is really pretty poorly thought out or just flat out contrived.
why would a V-Rex, with his mouth full of fresh kill he hasn't even fully consumed yet, be motivated to chase after an insignificant little speck like Ann? why would the bats who have evidently co-existed so long with Kong suddenly attack him for no other reason than the script needs Kong to be diverted at that point?
why does Ann feel more sympathy for Kong than for the ships crew who she was dancing and partying with just days before?

also, i saw a comment from someone elsewhere that i wholeheartedly agree with- this film is Kong in structure and Mighty Joe Young in character.

 

[Cory S.]

The animal behavior did bother me alot in the film. As much as Jurassic Park and Kong are two totally different films in technically two different genres, from my perspective, it would've been nice to see the animal behavior be more like it was in Jurassic. That film went along way to correct the mistakes of how dinosaurs were represented. And considering that Jurassic is probably "THE DINOSAUR FILM", it just seems that you can't go back to having dinosaurs being represented as monsters.

Now, Kong is a monster, fantasy film and I'm probably nitpicking way, way too much. I should look at it as such, but once you see Spielberg's take on dinosaurs, you can't come back from that.

Rambling. I'm sorry.

The Welles/Black comparison I made was only about appearance.

 

[Tim Glover]

Took in a late viewing last night. I just read Jeff Meyers review and thought most of his remarks were spot on.

I liked alot of it. Kong himself was incredible. The way he breathed and the expressions in his eyes were hypnotic.

I loved EVERY moment Kong was on screen. In fact, Kong was so good that the other moments just couldn't match them. Maybe that explains the film's uneven feel to it at times?

Like Jeff said, the CGI stuff on the stampede was not good. In fact, my buddy and I leaned over to each other at the same time and said, "the dinos looked better on Jurassic Park". It was too much at that moment too.

The T-Rex battle with Kong was stunning though. Almost felt like an Indiana Jones moment from Temple of Doom when the situation just kept getting worse and worse. The audience gasped and even laughed some...not because it was bad...they laughed a bit to get some kind of escape from that moment of hell for Kong and Naomi. True greatness and and will be a great dvd demo.

The Empire State Building stuff was tragically beautiful. Those moments put Peter Jackson at his best. It's those moments that he lives for and he pulls that moment off in spades.

Other misses is the films length. Like many here have said, not sure where to cut...but it was too long. A tighter movie would have made Kong a great film instead of a very good one for me.

Black was very good. I did think his last line of dialouge (also the film's last) fell a bit flat for me.

Anyone notice Howard Shore conducting the orchestra in the film? Cool.

This one is hard to score because the beauty of Kong himself nearly forgives all.

My gut feeling is that the box office expectations will fall short for Kong. I think it will be big but don't think it will have the box office power it could have.

 

[Haggai]

Yeah, if they had cut that first hour or so into a more manageable length, the box office numbers would be better. Some movie journalists have made that observation as well, Tim.

 

[Kami]

I read about that scene on the beach. It wasn't filmed for the trailer, it was just cut. The original cut of the film was about 4 hours but it was trimmed down to 3 hours. I think he just wanted to keep his options open...I don't know if that would make it into an extended DVD or not.

There should be more action and battles that were cut though...PJ mentioned some big ones were cut involving Kong.

I'd expect the extended DVD to be like FOTR and add about 30 minutes, but mostly on Skull Island.


BTW guys, this is a fantasy film. You can't really complain about how the Dinosaurs behaved then ignore the fact that there's a 25 foot gorilla leaping across giant chasms Skull Island is a mean place with 500 pound bugs and T-Rexes (actually they are V-Rexes, maybe PJs way of saying I'm not trying to show actual, boring animal behavior here) that kill for sport. Sure a real T-Rex would probably run away after getting slugged in the face a few times by Kong, but how does that make a fun Action/Adventure movie? This isn't "Walking with Dinosaurs"